M
Mickey
Guest
Only the Holy Spirit can bring him back.
- Status
P
prayforwisdom
Guest
Pro,
you said
Here is a quote, with my own bold emphasis, from “Answering Islam” 2nd ed. by Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb which should be helpful. Please read it all, especially the the bold section.
you said
I disagree with you here. The Trinity is logical. It is not contradictory. What makes you say it is not a logical doctrine and that it is contradictory?
Here is a quote, with my own bold emphasis, from “Answering Islam” 2nd ed. by Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb which should be helpful. Please read it all, especially the the bold section.
P
prayforwisdom
Guest
What doctrine are you referring to when you say “Would a just God make salvation dependent in a significant way on believing in a doctrine which no rational mind can conclude is coherent?”?
What do you mean by “a God with a body”? What doctrine are you referring to when you say “a God with a body”?
And, who cares what a modern day Orthodox Jew says about this doctrine?
If you are referring to the incarnation, it convinced first century Jews, such as the Apostles, including St Paul who was a Pharisee before becoming a Christian.
Even today, there are (from what i understand), at least thousands of Jews who believe this, such as Jews for Jesus.
M
Magicsilence
Guest
Im not sure we are getting anywhere.
When someone we love says they are leaving home, to go and live in a city they know nothing about, we worry about them.
When someone we love says they are leaving to go to live in Iraq, or Afghanistan, we tell them not to go, no?
Home IS the Catholic Church. The warzone is the world, and the false doctrines from other religions from the evil one.
Which of you would not beg your son not to leave for a warzone? Which of you would not ask if you had offended them in some way, even if you thought you hadnt?
I dont understand what you are advocating, mac.
If your wife was to throw herself of a cliff for example, would you stand back and clap, musing “An excellent example of free will in action” I think not!!
Peace and God Bless in Christ Jesus.
I
inJESUS
Guest
don’t you see that a person who gives Pro’s interpretations about Trinity and Jesus can not be Christian since the mindset is islamic?
the points raised by Pro betray his islamic mindset cus knowlegeable Christians have a different mindset. If the Trinity is illogical, then Jesus’ teachings are…unless Pro will tell us the usual Muslim lie : corrupt Bible…is it corrupt Pro?
As to Jews believing in God who takes a human form, well it’s there in their scriptures.
And if Pro is sure that Jews know their scriptures pretty well to know who God is, then maybe he can tell us the reason why they didn’t believe in Jesus since “they know their scriptures” pretty well.
T
tequilamac
Guest
Okay- you are not understanding. From the Desert Fathers:
The abbot and his disciple were walking to town. The disciple saw a coin laying in the road and picked it up. The abbot asked him if he put the coin in the road, ? The disciple said no. The abbot said then why are you picking it up? Is it yours? The disciple said no. The abbot told him to put it back and leave it.
On the other hand, Blessed Lawrence of the Practice of the Presence of God had a habit of picking up every piece of lint he found to keep God’s world perfect. Until one day it occurred to him that the lint was also God’s and he left it there.
So if my wife was going to jump off a building I would try to persuade her not to. And I would get her help. But if the more I argued with her the more determined she became to jump, I would shut up. Immediately.
If my son decided to move to Afghanistan, I would ask him if he thought that wise. If he was over 21 and intelligent and in control of his life and insisted on going, I would wish him Godspeed.
What you are doing is arguing with what pro universal is doing. Now, there seems to be some doubt with the other posters as to whether pro universal is actually a Catholic- his mindset is actually more Islamic. But if you see that arguing with pro universal is causing him to defend his sin and blaspheme the Church more, perhaps you should stop. And wish him God speed. For one of the first steps in healing anyone is to
DO NO FURTHER HARM.
If he was Catholic and is tested by the Evil One, don’t you think God knows it? If God is allowing it, why are you trying to interfere with what God is doing? God knows pro universal, and he would know if he was Catholic or Muslim. Just how are you going to stop God? God knows already. How much helpo does God really need from you? Read Job and then answer.
J
jAlex
Guest
:bowdown2:
M
Magicsilence
Guest
Perhaps we are approaching this from different viewpoints.
Would pro universal mind telling us what is his/her current stance on religion and which one he/she adheres to?
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not sure how you manage to distinguish between political and religious disputes. My understanding is that Islam recognizes no such distinction–or at least did not in the 7th century. Are you denying that the Caliphate was a religious office? The Shiites certainly think that these early disputes were religious–their entire identity depends on the religious belief that Ali and his descendants are the rightful successors of Muhammad. You might as well deny that the doctrine of apostolic succession is a religious belief (like the secular scholar who denied that St. Thomas More could be considered a martyr, because he died for the temporal supremacy of the Pope). And wasn’t 'Umar killed by a group of Kharijites as part of one of the fitnas? Wasn’t the Kharijite movement founded on a particular interpretation of Islam? This wasn’t simple dynastic squabbling. Even the Abbasid overthrow of the 'Umayyads, if I’m not mistaken, tied itself to religious issues (I believe the Abbasids enjoyed considerable Shiite support).
If you’ll excuse me, that’s a rather bizarre and highly prejudices characterization. The Christian West didn’t just up and “destroy” the learning of the past. The West was never as urbanized as the East during the Roman period, and Ramsay MacMullen (Corruption and the Decline of Rome) says that decline had set in during the later centuries of the Empire in the West (but not in the East). Then they were taken over by barbarian warlords with little interest in culture. The Church was the only preserver of ancient culture for centuries.
A far better point of comparison, it seems to me, would be the Eastern Empire. And this comparison does work to the advantage of Islam on a number of points. Early Islam was unquestionably more tolerant of other religions than early Byzantium. The change from Heraclius to the caliphs was to the advantage of Jews, pagans, and dissenting Christians. There was considerable justification (initially at least) for the Islamic characterization of the Byzantine emperor as “the tyrant.”
C
Contarini
Guest
It was stuck in part because it kept being hit by invaders just as it was starting to get off its feet. Look at the Carolingian Empire, which (for all its violence and intolerance) established peace over a large section of Western Europe. Not as impressive as the contemporary Abassid Empire, I admit, but given the circumstances quite an accomplishment. Then in the 10th century what happened? The Vikings came in from the north, the Magyars came howling across the plains of central Europe, and the followers of the “religion of peace” sailed across the Mediterranean and left the southern coastline of Europe in flames. The best parallel I can find for what the Muslims did to southern Europe in the early Middle Ages is what the Europeans (and the Arabs before them for that matter) did to Africa in the early modern period. (Granted the Europeans retaliated in kind as soon as they were able.)
Also, Germanic culture didn’t favor large political units. Germanic traditions of freedom and kinship made for pervasive violence, but in the long term they also (combined with Roman traditions) laid the foundation for modern Western democracy. Islam started off looking much more promising, with its doctrine of the equal dignity of all human beings. But this has never really gone anywhere as far as I can see. The absolutism of the Abbasids was replaced by a feuding warlord society that (with its violence intensified into horrifying cruelty by the Mongol influence) lasted until the 16th century, to be followed in turn by militaristic “gunpowder empires.”
OK, I’m overstating the point in response to what I see as your highly unfair characterizations of the West. There is plenty that is noble and admirable in the Islamic heritage. I agree with you that the level of learning and culture maintained even throughout war-torn periods is extremely impressive. The international scholarly world created by Islam fostered an intellectual ferment that any civilization could envy. And given the fervor of Muslims and their belief that conquest was God’s will, the relative toleration of Islamic society is amazing. But to put it in context, I can’t see that Christians and Jews were treated much better in Islamic society than Jews were treated in the Middle Ages. Most of the medieval regulations for Jewish dress, etc., which make us cringe with horror, were replicated in the dhimmi regulations of Islamic society. I don’t claim to be able to judge the matter exactly, and it does seem to me that Islamic society had an edge. There was greater comfort with the existence of unbelieving enclaves, and there was less cause for hatred, since it was not believed that Jews or Christians had killed Muhammad! But the essential principles seem to me to have been the same. In both societies unbelieving monotheists were tolerated under heavy restrictions. They were economically exploited but at the same time were often able to flourish precisely because they did not live by the same rules as the dominant society. They were ritually humiliated and were subject to occasional bouts of intolerance and massacre. They were not supposed to be converted by force, but in both societies this was often circumvented in one way or another. The situation did get worse in Christendom toward the end of the Middle Ages. But I think Islam was becoming less tolerant at the same time as well. I honestly can’t see a huge difference.
I wasn’t disputing that this was an impressive accomplishment. But I will note that you can’t give Islam credit for the positive features of Islamic civilization and absolve it from the negative ones (and yes, I know Christians try to do this, and it’s just as bogus, unless they can provide a clear argument for such a distinction). If, for instance, you say that the warlike tendencies of early Muslim society resulted from Bedouin tribal culture, you have to face the possibility that the peace and justice of Abbasid society derived in large measure from the Sassanid tradition of benevolent autocracy. Or conversely, if you want to say that the absolutism of the Abbasids derived from those same Persian roots, then you need to explain why you give Islam credit for the positive achievements of the era. You can’t just assume that the good stuff always comes from Islam and the bad stuff from somewhere else. And yes, this applies to Christianity as well.
C
Contarini
Guest
It seems to me that original Islam was violent in a rough-and-ready sort of way, and deeply hostile to art and culture (except for the verbal artistry of the Qur’an), but also basically egalitarian and concerned with freedom and justice. Even there, though, we could argue over which of these things came from Islam itself and which from Arab culture. Can we even distinguish? It seems to me that both the glories and the despotism of the Abbasids were additions to the original Islamic Arab culture. But in both cases Islam adapted itself (though with some protests). Both sides are part of the story. And the same is true, of course, with regard to the Western Christian adaptation to Roman culture. As a Christian I want to reject some aspects of this legacy and retain others. But in an apologetic context I have to admit that it’s all part of the picture.
With regard to the more modern situation, it seems to me that Western dominance has presented a serious crisis for Islam precisely because it’s a basic Islamic belief (at least a Sunni belief) that the political triumph of Islam is inevitable, and is the triumph of the rule of Allah in the world. Islamic fundamentalism arose from the idea that more traditional Islamic society must be corrupt or it wouldn’t have been overshadowed by the infidel West.
I wasn’t claiming that Muslims would accept defeat as a sign that the other guys were right. I’m claiming that there are serious tensions for Muslims with the idea of receding political power, because this runs against their basic understanding of how the world works. Christians certainly have thought in these triumphalist terms as well. But our belief in a crucified Savior allows us to understand times of defeat and oppression as a participation in Christ’s redemptive suffering, rather than as a call to holy violence. (Indeed, as a Christian I could make a tongue-in-cheek argument for Islamic supremacy on the grounds that we make very bad winners but good losers, while Muslims make relatively decent winners but horrible losers. The apocalyptic roots of Christianity make it hard for us to accept any victory in which unbelievers still exist, which is why Christianity does seem to have been historically at least somewhat less tolerant of minorities than Islam. But at the same time it’s proven quite possible for us to reject religious violence altogether; it remains to be seen whether Islam can do any such thing.)
I think you’re wrong about the Mongol invasions, at least to some extent. If I remember my Hodgson, quite a few Muslim scholars gladly served the Mongol invaders on the grounds that they were ministers of God’s judgment on a corrupt Islamic society. In particular, the Shi’ites were happy to collaborate in the destruction of Sunni civilization, if I remember rightly. (Granted this isn’t really relevant since I made my claim about the Sunnis originally!) And of course the fact that the Mongols converted to Islam confirmed the idea that they were divinely authorized. I may be overstating the case there, though.
With regard to the more modern situation, it seems to me that Western dominance has presented a serious crisis for Islam precisely because it’s a basic Islamic belief (at least a Sunni belief) that the political triumph of Islam is inevitable, and is the triumph of the rule of Allah in the world. Islamic fundamentalism arose from the idea that more traditional Islamic society must be corrupt or it wouldn’t have been overshadowed by the infidel West.
I wasn’t claiming that Muslims would accept defeat as a sign that the other guys were right. I’m claiming that there are serious tensions for Muslims with the idea of receding political power, because this runs against their basic understanding of how the world works. Christians certainly have thought in these triumphalist terms as well. But our belief in a crucified Savior allows us to understand times of defeat and oppression as a participation in Christ’s redemptive suffering, rather than as a call to holy violence. (Indeed, as a Christian I could make a tongue-in-cheek argument for Islamic supremacy on the grounds that we make very bad winners but good losers, while Muslims make relatively decent winners but horrible losers. The apocalyptic roots of Christianity make it hard for us to accept any victory in which unbelievers still exist, which is why Christianity does seem to have been historically at least somewhat less tolerant of minorities than Islam. But at the same time it’s proven quite possible for us to reject religious violence altogether; it remains to be seen whether Islam can do any such thing.)
Well, that’s not how I see the historical record. No doubt we should both do further study.
Again, no doubt I need to study this more. But I believe that the intellectual roots of modern “fundamentalist” Islam go back to the Wahhabi movement of the 18th century–precisely the period when Islam was beginning to lose ground to the West in an obvious way. Because this movement saw the Ottoman Empire as horribly corrupt, its replacement by European hegemony (while certainly troubling) was not entirely a bad thing. The catalyst for modern Islamic terrorism was the existence of the state of Israel and its repeated defeat of Islamic nations, which it seems to me fits my thesis quite well.
C
Contarini
Guest
As for whether Islam is at the root of modern terrorism, it depends which movement we’re talking about. I’m happy to absolve Islam from responsibility for the actions of the PLO. But when organizations like Hamas or Hezbollah or Al Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood explicitly claim to be following the mandates of the Qur’an, I’m not going to pull a Marx and tell them that they’re really the product of purely secular causes.
On the other hand, I don’t know how to characterize the early fitnas as anything but religious wars. The point at issue was who would succeed Muhammad as leader of the Islamic community. These early wars are responsible for the major religious division within Islam.
Do you deny the common claim that Islam makes no distinction between the religious or the political?
Christians historically have rejected forced conversion in principle just as Muslims have. Just like Muslims, Christians have been more likely to convert polytheists by force than fellow monotheists. I can’t see any major difference on this score.
I don’t buy that at all. If anything the reverse is true. Because Christians always have distinguished Church from State in some sense, you can make a case that our religious wars had distinctly secular (as well as religious) causes. The Thirty Years’ War, for instance, which was the most destructive of our religious wars by far, was not a simple Protestant-Catholic conflict. The French Catholics eventually entered the war on the “Protestant” side, and most of the German Lutheran states were unenthusiastic about the war or openly supported the Hapsburgs (granted there were religious reasons for this as well).
On the other hand, I don’t know how to characterize the early fitnas as anything but religious wars. The point at issue was who would succeed Muhammad as leader of the Islamic community. These early wars are responsible for the major religious division within Islam.
Do you deny the common claim that Islam makes no distinction between the religious or the political?
Tell that to the Sufis who were burned alive as heretics, or the thousands of victims of Sunni-Shiite conflict over the centuries, or the ulama of Mecca slaughtered by the Wahhabis in the early 19th century.
I have tried to remedy that omission this time around!
That’s completely false. This is the problem in the West. We have a secular narrative that radically misrepresents the history of Christianity, and an admirable multicultural curiosity that refrains from being too hard on non-Westerners. So you get monstrous errors like the one you just committed.
Christians historically have rejected forced conversion in principle just as Muslims have. Just like Muslims, Christians have been more likely to convert polytheists by force than fellow monotheists. I can’t see any major difference on this score.
C
Contarini
Guest
First of all, “trace” is an ill-chosen term, because there are abundant traces of pre-Christian religions in the culture and practice of Christian societies–far more so than in Islam although the same is true there as well. Second, the kind of pre-Christian religions Christians encountered were different than the pre-Islamic religions Muslims encountered in much of the world. As monarchs in Europe converted to Christianity, they tended to baptize their people en masse, with previous practices now becoming folk “superstitions.” I agree that Islam has historically worked on a more individual basis, but it has also had far more sophisticated religions to deal with (if I can use such a politically incorrect concept).
Jews, for all that they were often mistreated, flourished in Europe for centuries. Both Christians and Muslim governments in Spain (and in Sicily) practiced considerable tolerance until the North African Almohads upset the balance (note that what you claim of Christianity is true of North African Islam). That doesn’t excuse the Spanish Christians’ behavior, of course. The Crusading kingdoms treated Muslims and Jews in almost exactly the way Muslims had treated Christians and Jews (the massacre in 1099 is often cited to prove the contrary, but that was a massacre after the storming of a city–a practice also engaged in by Muslims under equivalent circumstances; if you look at how the Crusader States were run in the long term you see a very different picture).
That being said, you have a case! As I suggested earlier, Christians are more likely than Muslims to see the mere existence of unbelievers as a threat. Muslims merely see their dominance as a threat. Muslims aim primarily for domination, Christians for conversion. This has made Christians more likely to put heavy pressure on minorities to convert (though it’s completely false that forced conversion has been “the rule”), but it has also made it easier for us to renounce violence altogether. Still, we have not done this without a difficult struggle with our own past. Muslims need to engage in that same struggle (a true jihad?) instead of whitewashing the past (something Christians often do as well) and absolving themselves of all responsibility for its darker corners.
Don’t take my word for any of this. We all need to inform ourselves as much as possible. Don’t settle for propaganda on either side, and in particular avoid the generalizations of secular textbooks, which often don’t know what they are talking about and are simply taking the easy road of political correctness. Read specialist works, no matter their perspective. Hodgson’s history of Islam was very enlightening for me. I’ve also recently read Richard Fletcher’s The Cross and the Crescent (a history of Christian-Muslim relations in the Middle Ages). It’s of more particular relevance to the comparative issues we’ve been debating (he notes that Islam has a clear commandment to tolerate monotheistic faiths, while Christianity doesn’t; but he argues that in practice the difference between the two was not that great, and gives quite a few specific examples of intolerance on both sides).
Edwin
J
jAlex
Guest
Thanks Contarini for the best scholarly postings on this thread !
Alex.
Alex.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
If you really listen Jesus in your heart, I think He will lead you back into the Catholic Church. 
But remember, you really need to think about this.
The Angel Gabriel came to Mary and announced the birth of the Divine Son into the world. The same angel is said to have told Muhammed what he thought. And he tought that Jesus was not Divine.
Also keep in mind that reason alone cannot help you believe in Jesus. We need to have faith. Only one religion is correct (I believe Christianity is, my thought of truth) and you are free to practice any. But just keep Jesus’ words into account.
But remember, you really need to think about this.The Angel Gabriel came to Mary and announced the birth of the Divine Son into the world. The same angel is said to have told Muhammed what he thought. And he tought that Jesus was not Divine.
Also keep in mind that reason alone cannot help you believe in Jesus. We need to have faith. Only one religion is correct (I believe Christianity is, my thought of truth) and you are free to practice any. But just keep Jesus’ words into account.
M
M_Oliver
Guest
I will now give you the ONLY Scripture you will EVER need for understanding Who Jesus Christ and God the Father are and how many Gods there are, and Who composes that ONE God. CAPS are for emphasis, I am not SHOUTING.
"For even if so be that there are those being termed gods, whether in heaven or on earth, even as there are many gods and many lords, nevertheless for US there is ONE God, the FATHER, out of Whom ALL IS, and we for Him, and ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST, through Whom all is, and we through Him" (I Cor. 8:5-6).
And the next verse says…
"But NOT IN ALL is there this knowledge" (Ver. 7)
I can say “Amen” to that. Practically “not in all” Christendom is there this knowledge.
How many Gods are there? Answer: “ONE God.”
Of Whom is this ONE God composed? Answer: “the FATHER.”
NOT, the Father, AND the Son, AND the holy ghost. Just, “the Father.” ONLY, “the Father.” “ONE God, the FATHER.”
Is not God’s definition far easier and better than the theologians’ “one, plus ONE, plus ONE, equals ONE”?
Is Jesus Christ an equal part of this “ONE God?” NO, He is not. Let God’s Word tell us. We don’t need to speculate and theorize. Here is Who and What Jesus Christ is, He is the “one LORD.” This is not hard. It is only hard for those who wrestle and twist Scripture to their own destruction (II Peter 3:16). John 8:5-6 makes the following very clear:
This Scripture tells us that “ALL IS OUT OF” GOD (the FATHER).
And this Scripture tells us that “ALL IS THROUGH” Jesus Christ.
God the Father is the first cause of all and ALL IS OUT GOD, even Jesus Christ is “OUT of God.”
**"…I [Jesus] came OUT from God. I CAME OUT FROM the FATHER…" (John 16:27-28). **
Now if Jesus came out from the trinity, why doesn’t the Scripture say so? He didn’t come out of the trinity and He didn’t come out of the holy spirit, but HE DID COME, “…OUT FROM THE FATHER.”
And after Jesus Christ came OUT from the Father, ALL ELSE came THROUGH Jesus Christ:
"Who [Jesus Christ] is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature, for in Him is ALL CREATED, that in the heavens and that on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created THROUGH Him and FOR Him, and He is BEFORE all, and all has its cohesion in Him" (Col. 14-17).
Nowhere do we read that God came out from Christ! No, Christ came OUT FROM THE FATHER and all else was created THROUGH Jesus Christ. There is no trinity here.
Jesus Christ is not the SUPREME DEITY. Christ is not the originator of all. Christ is “the Lord.” He is the Son of God. He is the IMAGE of the invisible God. He is the Mediator,
**For there is ONE God, and ONE Mediator OF God and mankind, a MAN Christ Jesus…" (I Tim. 2:5). **
As I said before, one cannot be both “of” something or someone and at the same time “be” that something or someone. There is certainly no trilateral, triune, trinity of God here.
Jesus Christ said,
**"…I am going to the Father, for the Father is GREATER than I" (John 14:28). **
Where do we read that Christ is GREATER than the Father? There is no trinity in this verse.
And again:
**“Now, whenever ALL may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself [Jesus Christ] also SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO HIM [God the Father] Who subjects all to Him, that GOD may be All in all.” **
Where do we read that someday God the Father will be SUBJECT to Christ? There is no trinity in these Biblical truths.
And again:
**“Now I want you to be aware that the Head of every man is Christ, yet the head of the woman is the man, yet the Head of Christ IS GOD” (I Cor. 11:3). **
Where do we read in Scripture that Christ is the Head of God?
There is another profound statement in the Scriptures that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that Jesus Christ is not part of a trinity, but is now and always will be, under the Headship of His Father. Here it is:
"…that the GOD OF OUR LORD Jesus Christ, the FATHER…" (Eph. 1:17).
There it is–Jesus Christ HAS A “GOD.” Paul wrote this and all of the above Scriptures AFTER Jesus Christ was resurrected and restored to His previous GLORIES in God. And in His glorified state, Jesus Christ is STILL subjected to HIS GOD.
Hope this helps you pro_universal.
D
Damascus
Guest
I often think about Mary and what you said raised a point in my mind:If you really listen Jesus in your heart, I think He will lead you back into the Catholic Church.
The Angel Gabriel came to Mary and announced the birth of the Divine Son into the world. The same angel is said to have told Muhammed what he thought. And he tought that Jesus was not Divine.
Also keep in mind that reason alone cannot help you believe in Jesus. We need to have faith. Only one religion is correct (I believe Christianity is, my thought of truth) and you are free to practice any. But just keep Jesus’ words into account.
Remember how Gabriel came to Mary in our Bible? God waited for her affirmation to his words, she accepted her role and had a choice in it.
She could have said, I dont think I am up for this! Please spare me from this role you ask of me!
But she made it clear upon hearing what the plan was to accept.
How does the Koran explain the same event?
Allah said “be” and it was.
No talking to Mary first at all. She says nothing, because Allah does not give her a choice in the matter from the way it reads to me, unless Pro knows more than I do on that one and can tell me how he sees it?
I’m not putting a bad spin on this but really asking you if you saw that in the Koran or not, and if you consider it an issue to you or not?
None of my business really but I kinda think you may reflect on that story and see the difference -
Allah really seems to me to be very pushy.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
This is bad information, not trying to be mean. Jesus is God! These statements that you make that say that Jesus had a beginning were a heresy in the early Church. Jesus is God and I will show you in scripture where this is said.
John 5:18
For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.
As Scripture put it, Jesus was making himself equal to God, by claiming to be his Son.
John 9:58
Very truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.
I AM was the name given to Abraham by God.
I
Image_of_God
Guest
M_Oliver, anybody who claims that Jesus is not God, makes finite his sacrifice, since only God is infinite and only he could make an infinte Sacrfice. Jesus is God and God is him, it is in this verse it is revealed to us:
John 14:11
Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me…
Jesus and the Father are one, yet two seperate persons. This oneness makes it possible that they are ONE God.
You cannot seperate Jesus and the Father for they are always one, and they are always equal although the Father is the eternal origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Also for your assurance another quote:
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
M_Oliver, sorry but such a conclusion is heretical and anti-biblical and I cannot allow anybody to fall into such a heresy.
Jesus had two natures, human and Divine. Your verses apply to human, mine to his divine.
John 14:11
Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me…
Jesus and the Father are one, yet two seperate persons. This oneness makes it possible that they are ONE God.
You cannot seperate Jesus and the Father for they are always one, and they are always equal although the Father is the eternal origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Also for your assurance another quote:
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
M_Oliver, sorry but such a conclusion is heretical and anti-biblical and I cannot allow anybody to fall into such a heresy.
Jesus had two natures, human and Divine. Your verses apply to human, mine to his divine.
D
Damascus
Guest
Pro universal,
I really feel bad that I may have asked you something that was not right to ask.
You know your heart, and your thoughts are not ones we should feel we can pry into unless you volunteer things.
Please forgive my last post since you dont need to explain yourself to anyone!
I will choose to love you anyway.
Good night.
I really feel bad that I may have asked you something that was not right to ask.
You know your heart, and your thoughts are not ones we should feel we can pry into unless you volunteer things.
Please forgive my last post since you dont need to explain yourself to anyone!
I will choose to love you anyway.
Good night.
- Status